linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 3/3] mm/map_contig: Add mmap(MAP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 15 Oct 2017 08:07:43 +0000
From:   Guy Shattah <sguy@...lanox.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 3/3] mm/map_contig: Add mmap(MAP_CONTIG) support



On 13/10/2017 19:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 13-10-17 10:56:13, Cristopher Lameter wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>>>> There is a generic posix interface that could we used for a variety 
>>>> of specific hardware dependent use cases.
>>> Yes you wrote that already and my counter argument was that this 
>>> generic posix interface shouldn't bypass virtual memory abstraction.
>> It does do that? In what way?
> availability of the virtual address space depends on the availability 
> of the same sized contiguous physical memory range. That sounds like 
> the abstraction is gone to large part to me.

In what way? userspace users will still be working with virtual memory.

>
>>>> There are numerous RDMA devices that would all need the mmap 
>>>> implementation. And this covers only the needs of one subsystem. 
>>>> There are other use cases.
>>> That doesn't prevent providing a library function which could be 
>>> reused by all those drivers. Nothing really too much different from 
>>> remap_pfn_range.
>> And then in all the other use cases as well. It would be much easier 
>> if mmap could give you the memory you need instead of havig numerous 
>> drivers improvise on their own. This is in particular also useful for 
>> numerous embedded use cases where you need contiguous memory.
> But a generic implementation would have to deal with many issues as 
> already mentioned. If you make this driver specific you can have 
> access control based on fd etc... I really fail to see how this is any 
> different from remap_pfn_range.

Why have several driver specific implementation if you can generalize the idea and implement an already existing POSIX standard?
--
Guy